Modern Muslims. Steve Howard

Islamic polemicists such as Sayid Qutb (1906–1966), the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood stalwart who was a contemporary of Mahmoud Mohamed Taha, promoted what could be called a static approach to sharia, stressing that sharia must be observed as they believed it was described in the Qur’an. Taha called his own approach “evolutionary,” one that would move humankind to the level of Islam practiced by the Prophet Mohamed. Taha wrote in the introduction to the fourth edition of The Second Message of Islam,

      Muslims seem unaware of the need to evolve Shari’a. They continue to think that the problems of the twentieth century may be resolved by the same legislation that resolved the problems of the seventh century. This is obviously irrational. Muslims maintain that the Islamic Shari’a is perfect. This is true, but its perfection consists precisely in its ability to evolve, assimilate the capabilities of individuals and society, and guide such life up the ladder of continuous development.¹

      The texts of the Republican Brotherhood, the books written by Mahmoud Mohamed Taha and the books, tracts, and odes written by other members of the organization were critically important to my understanding of the social life of the Brotherhood. These works provided the philosophical backdrop for all Republican activities, from their meetings with Ustadh Mahmoud and each other, to public presentations of the movement’s ideology, to the pleasure the brothers and sisters derived from singing the contemporary hymns created out of odes on Republican themes.

      The Republican ideology stood opposed to the political Islam of Osama bin Laden or Sayid Qutb. The Republicans viewed the Islamist perspective as an opportunistic use of the Qur’an’s message to seventh-century members of the Prophet’s community in Medina, to further contemporary political aims. The “reforms” promoted by Islamists are to accept the parts of that seventh-century revelation deemed useful to political objectives today, such as the infliction of cruel punishments instead of addressing poverty or the subordination of women. Iran, Sudan, and some of the states of northern Nigeria have been selective in the aspects of sharia that these “Islamic states,” have applied in their criminal codes, in effect, “revising Shari’a,” or “cherry-picking” Islamic law, in the American idiom.